Absolute proof of video fakery

[mchapman]

I had never heard of that one. Boy, these theories get more moronic by the minute.

So were all these witnesses lying? There seems a lot more consensus on the missile than there does on planes. How are quotes from people a theory? Can you explain them? If you don't believe they are true then explain you are happy to believe the people who saw planes but not the people who saw missiles?

[ElMondoHummus]

Instead of being an uncivil, cheap-shot taking bastard and saying "if people said this, it should be easy to link to those testimonies" - something any of us would be entitled to do, given his own insistence on seeing our links - I would rather respond to such "missile" claims this way:

The wreckage was authenticated as being that of a jet plane, not a missile. Furthermore, radar data as well as video footage - the same footage you claim as fake yet cannot prove as such - also demonstrates this. As well as the recovery of personal effects and human remains from hijackers on the jets (I do not recall if human remains of passengers were recovered; someone else can fill me in on that). So given that, why would you even claim that any such testimony of a missile - assuming it is genuinely a case of people honestly thinking they saw a missile - has any traction? Pieces of evidence do not stand separately, and missile claims fail in the face of other pieces of evidence, even if the witnesses making the claims are sincere in their beliefs (and assuming this isn't another case of mistaken similies and quotemining from conspiracy peddlers; we cannot tell if that's the case in the absence of any links to such testimony). So why try this track? There's nothing to gain from it; missile claims are falsified by multiple, independent yet converging threads of evidence, no matter what witnesses supposedly say. Such testimony would be rendered null by the physical and electronic evidence, as well as the weight of evidence from other witnesses. So why try going this way? There's no "gotcha" there.

ETA: By the way, since we were so kind as to provide our own links to eyewitness testimony, it would be kind in turn to provide links to people claiming they witnesses a missile. Just to maintain the spirit of fair play and all.

Thank you.

[Pardalis]

So were all these witnesses lying? There seems a lot more consensus on the missile than there does on planes.

No, alot more people saw a plane, videos show planes, the missile thingy involves alot more than just eyewitnesses. It adds incredibly more complexity to the whole sequence of events and a whole new set of evidence is required to even consider it.

[defaultdotxbe]

So were all these witnesses lying? There seems a lot more consensus on the missile than there does on planes. How are quotes from people a theory? Can you explain them? If you don't believe they are true then explain you are happy to believe the people who saw planes but not the people who saw missiles?
none of those appear to be from anyone who actually saw a missile, one of them is a secondhand account from a firefighter stating a police officer saw a missile, but the link to the source is dead and neither the firefighter nor the police he refers to is named

im afraid youll have to do better than that

[mchapman]

Instead of being an uncivil, cheap-shot taking bastard and saying "if people said this, it should be easy to link to those testimonies" - something any of us would be entitled to do, given his own insistence on seeing our links - I would rather respond to such "missile" claims this way:

The wreckage was authenticated as being that of a jet plane, not a missile. Furthermore, radar data as well as video footage - the same footage you claim as fake yet cannot prove as such - also demonstrates this. As well as the recovery of personal effects and human remains from hijackers on the jets (I do not recall if human remains of passengers were recovered; someone else can fill me in on that). So given that, why would you even claim that any such testimony of a missile - assuming it is genuinely a case of people honestly thinking they saw a missile - has any traction? Pieces of evidence do not stand separately, and missile claims fail in the face of other pieces of evidence, even if the witnesses making the claims are sincere in their beliefs (and assuming this isn't another case of mistaken similies and quotemining from conspiracy peddlers; we cannot tell if that's the case in the absence of any links to such testimony). So why try this track? There's nothing to gain from it; missile claims are falsified by multiple, independent yet converging threads of evidence, no matter what witnesses supposedly say. Such testimony would be rendered null by the physical and electronic evidence, as well as the weight of evidence from other witnesses. So why try going this way? There's no "gotcha" there.

ETA: By the way, since we were so kind as to provide our own links to eyewitness testimony, it would be kind in turn to provide links to people claiming they witnesses a missile. Just to maintain the spirit of fair play and all.

Thank you.


Which serial numbered parts were officially confirmed as belonging to flights 11 and 175?

[fullflavormenthol]

...There seems a lot more consensus on the missile than there does on planes....

How the hell can you even justify such a moronic statement? You are saying that we should take potentially erronous reports at face value. While ignoring thousands of eye witnesses, the 50+ testimonies you ignored, and the video evidence from multiple sources; but instead take these handful of reports to the police at face value?

Let me ask you a question. Given the inexpensive nature of home video cameras, and the fact that so many people focused on the towers with there cameras. Why isn't there at least one video of a missle hitting the towers? Why isn't there one single video of a person launching missles at the towers?

[ElMondoHummus]

Which serial numbered parts were officially confirmed as belonging to flights 11 and 175?

I'm afraid I don't know. I merely lean on the witness and passenger testimony, the radar data, the admission of the airlines that their jets were missing, the discovery of jet plane parts, the Air Traffic Controller testimony, etc. to falsify the notion that a missile was used.

But, again, I'm interested in seeing the counter testimony. Again, since you made the claim that some witnesses saw a missile, and since we were willing to provide our own links to eyewitness testimony regarding the impacts, it would be most kind if you'd provide your own link(s) to missile testimony. So we could judge for ourselves how well it stacks up.

Again, thank you in advance for providing that.

[TexasJack]

So were all these witnesses lying? There seems a lot more consensus on the missile than there does on planes. How are quotes from people a theory? Can you explain them? If you don't believe they are true then explain you are happy to believe the people who saw planes but not the people who saw missiles?

Of course you are taking this out of context:
"Mr. Chairman, on the morning of 9/11, I was on the World Trade Center
Concourse when the first plane hit. I responded immediately to the World Trade Center
Police Desk, which was in the immediate vicinity on the plaza level and was told that the
police had a report that a missile had been fired at the World Trade Center from the
Woolworth building. A PA detective and I immediately left the police desk and headed
out to the plaza through Five WTC to see what had really happened. We observed the
north face of the north tower with a large gash across it and multiple floors fully engulfed
in flames. We realized that this was not a missile, based on what our minds could
conceive of the damage, and then we noticed part of a large plane’s wheel assembly on
the plaza. We dragged the assembly back to the police desk and informed the desk
officer that a large commercial plane had hit the tower."
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing11/reiss_statement.pdf

There were many erroneous reports that day, does that make them all true?

[Drudgewire]

How the hell can you even justify such a moronic statement?


It took seven pages before you thought to ask this? vhttp://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/shobon.gifv

[ElMondoHummus]

Of course you are taking this out of context:
"Mr. Chairman, on the morning of 9/11, I was on the World Trade Center
Concourse when the first plane hit. I responded immediately to the World Trade Center
Police Desk, which was in the immediate vicinity on the plaza level and was told that the
police had a report that a missile had been fired at the World Trade Center from the
Woolworth building. A PA detective and I immediately left the police desk and headed
out to the plaza through Five WTC to see what had really happened. We observed the
north face of the north tower with a large gash across it and multiple floors fully engulfed
in flames. We realized that this was not a missile, based on what our minds could
conceive of the damage, and then we noticed part of a large plane’s wheel assembly on
the plaza. We dragged the assembly back to the police desk and informed the desk
officer that a large commercial plane had hit the tower."
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing11/reiss_statement.pdf

There were many erroneous reports that day, does that make them all true?

All right. TexasJack provided one for mchapman. As we can see, this one is not a good one, because it's second- or third-hand, and can be the result of a misunderstanding. So it's perhaps not the best example of mchapman's thesis, since nothing about it can falsify the latter recovery of physical evidence, or conclusions drawn from studying electronic evidence.

Possibly mchapman has some better examples?

[dudalb]

Exactly what kind of missiles were fired at the WTC from the Woolworth building?
I cannot think of any man portable missiles that could have done that kind of massive damage, and if the ones there were big enough to do that damage are sort of hard to move around without being noticied.
God, it keeps getting stupider and stupider.

[fullflavormenthol]

It took seven pages before you thought to ask this? vhttp://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/shobon.gifv
Well it should have really been the opening of my first post, but I try to humor people and assume they can be reasoned with. Curse my naive nature!

[Pardalis]

So if a missile was shot from the Woolworth building at WTC1, then what hit the second tower?

Wasn't it hit from the other side?

[defaultdotxbe]

Exactly what kind of missiles were fired at the WTC from the Woolworth building?
I cannot think of any man portable missiles that could have done that kind of massive damage, and if the ones there were big enough to do that damage are sort of hard to move around without being noticied.
God, it keeps getting stupider and stupider.
also, i seem to recall the woolworth reports being independent of the planes, IE people were saying planes hit the towers AND missiles were being fired from the woolworth building, but then i still dont think ive seen a firsthand report of the missile(s)

[Mince]

Debunked. (http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/175speed.html)

Any more nonsense you want to peddle?


I just love the truthers' simple understanding of physics. Small wonder it's so easy for Alex Jones to dupe them.

[VespaGuy]

Why is anyone still wasting time with mchapman?

There have been some very good and detailed posts by multiple debunkers. Yet, mchapman continues to ignore everything that contradicts his fantasy and replies in 3 sentences or less, usually with a useless question that spins off into another wild fantasy. More detailed responses appear and the cycle continues.

Whether a troll, sock, child, or in need of pschiatric help, mchapman is not open to rational discussion. Kudos to those that take on this nonsense, but this clown is a pure waste of time.

[16.5]

Produce 50 people who saw a plane and I'll shut up and go away.

Fair enough?

YES! Very fair! Except for the parts where 1. you didn't shut up: and 2. you didn't go away.

That wasn't very fair of you to lie like that, now was it No Planer?

You see you still have not shut up and you are still here.

So you lied.

I kinda hope you stay, frankly. I like it when No Planers make a mockery out of the Truth movement.

Keep up the great work! It makes our job SO easy.

[rwguinn]

Several people said they saw missiles. Several people say they just saw the building explode. Do you believe them?
Goalposts, goalposts....mumble.. mumble....
I swear I saw a set around here before....

The problem, guys, is he asked for 50. You gave him WAYYYYY more than that, so obviously you can't follow instructions and are therefore shills...

[dudalb]

also, i seem to recall the woolworth reports being independent of the planes, IE people were saying planes hit the towers AND missiles were being fired from the woolworth building, but then i still dont think ive seen a firsthand report of the missile(s)


Still makes no sense. The damage Any missile you could launch and sneak back inside the Woolworth Building would be totally worthless compared the damage done by the planes if you were trying to increase the damage. You might as well throw matches into the inferno.
And I presume the NWO had military guys on the payroll who would have told them that.

[fullflavormenthol]

Why is anyone still wasting time with mchapman?

There have been some very good and detailed posts by multiple debunkers. Yet, mchapman continues to ignore everything that contradicts his fantasy and replies in 3 sentences or less, usually with a useless question that spins off into another wild fantasy. More detailed responses appear and the cycle continues.

Whether a troll, sock, child, or in need of pschiatric help, mchapman is not open to rational discussion. Kudos to those that take on this nonsense, but this clown is a pure waste of time.
I don't know. Honestly I did my honest critique and it was ignored, and when I reposted one single point it was met with a useless challenge that too was quickly met. Like this thread and the other dealing with Ace Baker, both posters are unwilling to look at the evidence. I don't know if they are trolls or not, but the honest fact is that they are here to either fight or claim that their challenge cannot be met.

Personally it gets to me, and it shouldn't, but I spent the last 6 months reworking my college's TV station to make it more modern as far as graphics go. I have spent so much time learning and working in all manner of programs (Adobe apps, New Tek Tricaster, Avid, and Final Cut). I have learned these programs and know what can and cannot be done, and so when people post nonsense it gets under my skin.

These are people that watch Transformers and think that these techniques could be applied in real time. These are people that think that simply compositing a photo moving across a live video would fool anyone without motion tracking. I mean Steven Wright pointed out the flaws, and he is right but still these people want to believe in nonsense. These people could not even recreate the same effect and yet they want to say that they have "absolute proof".

That and real people died when real planes crashed into those buildings. These are the worst of the truthers, and that is saying something right there.

Anyway...I agree that this is pointless. The goal posts will always be moved regardless of how many things are clearly debunked. My opinion is that if I can find serious flaws in a truther presentation in real time than the presentation is bunk.

[HyJinX]

Maybe they were thermite filled, mini-nuke, laser missiles. What do you think Mchapman? Plausible?

[twinstead]

I love how now every single eye witness account that was provided who saw a plane hit the tower is hand waved away, but a couple who thought they saw a missile are focused in on. And mchapman has the nerve to ask, "what, are those people lying?"

So. mchapman. Are all those people we were kind enough to give you links to lying? Jesus Christ on a stick I can't believe we are in the midst of yet ANOTHER no plane thread.

And by the way, could any of you other truthers who think that people in your own movement who believe there were no planes are full of it PLEASE come on this thread and show us you have a pair and tell them that?

[CurtC]

mchapman, I would like to see the testimony of at least 50 people, out of the tens of thousands watching while 175 hit, who were in a position to see an aircraft coming in from the South but did not see one. These people should be raging mad that the news outlets showed a plane coming in when they know there was none. Please provide at least 50 witness testimonies of these folks.

[Corsair 115]

Right, so we have 5 million people in the vicinity and thousands who saw a plane. It should be easy for you to produce just 50 of them.It's actually easy for you to check yourself. Go to the library, pick a newspaper, and read its issues from 9/12 onwards. You should find reports in which eyewitnesses describe what they saw. You could also review the various news television broadcasts on 9/11 itself as well as the days afterwards for similiar reports.

Please note that the events of 9/11 were also covered by news media from nations other than the U.S. This includes television, radio, and print media.

[DGM]

mchapman:
Just stop with this video fakery nonsense! A good friend of mine video taped (and I've seen) the death of his wife (In the south tower) (also my friend). Thousands of people saw with their own eyes the planes crashing. This whole idea is just sick.

Please seek help (you need it)

*I know I said I was not going to post in this sub-forum anymore,but this subject effects me way to much to let this type of ignorance fester.*

[Drudgewire]

mchapman, I would like to see the testimony of at least 50 people, out of the tens of thousands watching while 175 hit, who were in a position to see an aircraft coming in from the South but did not see one. These people should be raging mad that the news outlets showed a plane coming in when they know there was none. Please provide at least 50 witness testimonies of these folks.


Just ONE who says "I was there and what happened is nothing like what you see on television" would be a good start.

Well, let's make it five. Can't rule out the attention whore factor. :o

[Corsair 115]

I have spent so much time learning and working in all manner of programs (Adobe apps, New Tek Tricaster, Avid, and Final Cut). I have learned these programs and know what can and cannot be done, and so when people post nonsense it gets under my skin.

These are people that watch Transformers and think that these techniques could be applied in real time. These are people that think that simply compositing a photo moving across a live video would fool anyone without motion tracking.One doesn't even necessarily have to be an expert to be able to detect visual effects (though naturally it would be of great help). I've watched science-fiction movies since I was a kid, and consequently have developed a good eye for spotting special effects. It's not perfect, but more times than not, I can spot when a shot is an effect of one kind or another.

One of the things that always gives away a shot, especially when it involves human-like figures, is the motion. Even the best CGI guys often still don't get motion quite right.

[Mancman]

It's kitten/recipe time, people.

[roundhead]

I'm afraid I don't know. I merely lean on the witness and passenger testimony, the radar data, the admission of the airlines that their jets were missing, the discovery of jet plane parts, the Air Traffic Controller testimony, etc. to falsify the notion that a missile was used.

But, again, I'm interested in seeing the counter testimony. Again, since you made the claim that some witnesses saw a missile, and since we were willing to provide our own links to eyewitness testimony regarding the impacts, it would be most kind if you'd provide your own link(s) to missile testimony. So we could judge for ourselves how well it stacks up.

Again, thank you in advance for providing that.


The Govt's own database(which is an extremely accurate and well managed one)said those flights never flew that day. Untill later "changed" to say they did.



WikiScanner discovered that American Airlines changed their Wikipedia entry to state that Flights 11 and 77 never flew on 9/11.

Original entry was:

Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and American Airlines Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).

New entry is:

Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and Flight 11 (a Boeing 767). Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day.

[Myriad]

The Govt's own database(which is an extremely accurate and well managed one)said those flights never flew that day. Untill later "changed" to say they did.


Remarkable! Who do you think falsified the Govt's own database to indicate that those flights never flew? Why do you think they did it?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Drudgewire]

The Govt's own database(which is an extremely accurate and well managed one)said those flights never flew that day. Untill later "changed" to say they did.


I'm not familiar with this claim and am not disputing it without looking around, but knowing the comedy treasure chest which is "twoofer evidence," this database wouldn't be one that logs flights after they arrive at their destinations, would it?

[Totovader]

The Govt's own database(which is an extremely accurate and well managed one)said those flights never flew that day. Untill later "changed" to say they did.



WikiScanner discovered that American Airlines changed their Wikipedia entry to state that Flights 11 and 77 never flew on 9/11.

Original entry was:

Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and American Airlines Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).

New entry is:

Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and Flight 11 (a Boeing 767). Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day.

Is every single one of your posts plagiarism or what!

You stole this right from infowars (http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/american_airlines_911_didnt_happen.htm)

What was that about "independent thinking"?

Good lord.

[Corsair 115]

The Govt's own database(which is an extremely accurate and well managed one)said those flights never flew that day. Untill later "changed" to say they did.What do the airlines have to say about it? Those were their aircraft, after all, and expensive pieces of hardware. Not to mention the cost of fuel and the salaries of the pilots, flight attendants, and ticket agents. So now your conspiracy requires the airlines to be in on it, along with many of the people who worked for them.

Again, I find it fascinating how no planers are apparently completely oblivious to just how crazy their ideas are.

[jhunter1163]

Mchapman, would you mind telling Stanley Praimnath just what it was that flew through his window and killed all his coworkers?

[Quad4_72]

Video fakery/no planers..they are the worst! Here is their evidence in a nutshell:

Show grainy footage and make up stupid *****.

[Foolmewunz]

MChapman, you are a cad, sir. Your word as a gentleman means nothing to you? Why are you still here?

Your challenge was met and even exceeded. You are to shut up and go away. If you do not, well, then, I suppose some are going to assume you're just a nasty old troll.

Fie! Be gone, I say! At least get one thing in your three-day history here correct.

[ElMondoHummus]

MChapman, you are a cad, sir. Your word as a gentleman means nothing to you? Why are you still here?

Your challenge was met and even exceeded. You are to shut up and go away. If you do not, well, then, I suppose some are going to assume you're just a nasty old troll.

Fie! Be gone, I say! At least get one thing in your three-day history here correct.

Well... I, for one, hopes he hangs out long enough to provide his own link to that missile testimony. After all, we provided the Gravy links, the MemoryHole links, the NYTimes Oral Histories links, etc. for him. It's just simple politeness to respond in kind.

[Quad4_72]

Just a little suggestion for everyone's sanity, STOP RESPONDING TO mchapman! He is directly ignoring all evidence presented. He simply spouts nonsense without providing proof. Eye witness testimony of people seeing the plane has been presented to him several times, and he has chosen to ignore it EVERY time.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Just a little suggestion for everyone's sanity, STOP RESPONDING TO mchapman! He is directly ignoring all evidence presented. He simply spouts nonsense without providing proof. Eye witness testimony of people seeing the plane has been presented to him several times, and he has chosen to ignore it EVERY time.

Which evidence? I don't see any of you bringing anything more then he is. Why is your conspiracy theory any better then his?

[Mercutio]

Which evidence? I don't see any of you bringing anything more then he is. Why is your conspiracy theory any better then his?

Admitting you have a reading comprehension problem is a big first step for you to have taken. I'm proud of you.

[beachnut]

Which evidence? I don't see any of you bringing anything more then he is. Why is your conspiracy theory any better then his?
You are the one void of evidence supporting a clear lie.

You have no evidence to prove me wrong, and missed the clear evidence in this thread you have failed to find.

Please refute the evidence here in the thread making the OP false. You can't?

[AJM8125]

Which evidence? I don't see any of you bringing anything more then he is. Why is your conspiracy theory any better then his?

You've read the thread, haven't you?

[Grizzly Bear]

Which evidence? I don't see any of you bringing anything more then he is. Why is your conspiracy theory any better then his?

There's never enough evidence from the standpoint you're at... why bother asking a rhetorical question when you'll never be convinced by the evidence we give you, no matter how much it falsifies you?

[mchapman]

There's never enough evidence from the standpoint you're at... why bother asking a rhetorical question when you'll never be convinced by the evidence we give you, no matter how much it falsifies you?

You have no evidence of anything. You just parrot an official story. Even the official story admits it has no hard evidence against osama but you still claim he did 911. You have absolutely no evidence of the identity of the hijackers, men who have had no trial.

[Homeland Insurgency]

There's never enough evidence from the standpoint you're at... why bother asking a rhetorical question when you'll never be convinced by the evidence we give you, no matter how much it falsifies you?

Live up to your own standards. You're not debunking anything you're pretending not to be a hypocrite.

[mchapman]

Admitting you have a reading comprehension problem is a big first step for you to have taken. I'm proud of you.

Perhaps you could summarize the huge volume of evidence you have to support the official story. it would give us something to practice our reading skills on.

[dudalb]

There's never enough evidence from the standpoint you're at... why bother asking a rhetorical question when you'll never be convinced by the evidence we give you, no matter how much it falsifies you?

I see that LostChild Homeland Insurgency's debating style has a very familiar ring.

Do not post accusations of sock puppetry.

[AJM8125]

You have no evidence of anything. You just parrot an official story. Even the official story admits it has no hard evidence against osama but you still claim he did 911. You have absolutely no evidence of the identity of the hijackers, men who have had no trial.

Dead men don't need a trial. How about addressing your OP?

[dudalb]

You have no evidence of anything. You just parrot an official story. Even the official story admits it has no hard evidence against osama but you still claim he did 911. You have absolutely no evidence of the identity of the hijackers, men who have had no trial.

No Planers should be very careful about accusing other people of having "no evidence" on the "people who live in Glass Houses,etc" principal.

[Drudgewire]

I see that LostChild Homeland Insurgency's debating style has a very familiar ring.


I can never tell one posting style from another, but every single time one's outed they'd already been on my ignore list just like the original persona. :p

[Homeland Insurgency]

No Planers should be very careful about accusing other people of having "no evidence" on the "people who live in Glass Houses,etc" principal.


Wow you've read the one about the "people who live in glass houses"?

Now try the one about "The Emperors New Clothes".

http://wtc.nist.gov/

[Homeland Insurgency]

I can never tell one posting style from another, but every single time one's outed they'd already been on my ignore list just like the original persona. :p

Learning anything about yourself and your indoctrination?

[Foolmewunz]

Perhaps you could summarize the huge volume of evidence you have to support the official story. it would give us something to practice our reading skills on.

"Hello? Acme Goal Post Removals... Miss Hutchison speaking... How may I help you? Well... uh, let's see.... two stepvans 0100 GMT... JREF Forums CT threads... Okay. You got it! We'll send the vans right over. And thank you for calling Acme."

[Jonnyclueless]

You have no evidence of anything. You just parrot an official story. Even the official story admits it has no hard evidence against osama but you still claim he did 911. You have absolutely no evidence of the identity of the hijackers, men who have had no trial.

No, the offcial story does NOT admit it has no hard evidence against Osama. You're trying to be misleading about him not being on the msot wanted list for a specific reason. There is no doubt by the FBI or anyone other than crackpots that Osama was the leader of Al Qeada and that Al Qeada carried out the attacks. Once again, the evidence has been listed and is conclusive. It stands up in a court of law.

Now can any of your crackpot theories do the same? You can't even support your faked video nonsense. You can't even stick up for your own beliefs or support them because you have absolutely no evidence what so ever to support your crackpot theories.

Like creationism, your cult has to focus on casting doubt on real research to make up for the fact that you cannot support your own hypothesis. And to make it worse you make the same identical arguments as well the lemmings before you. But who are we kidding? you're not new here, you're just using a new login to make the same arguments you've been making for forever.

And yet years go by and still no one will listen to your crackpot theories. I guess it must be getting lonely down there eh?

[Drudgewire]

Learning anything about yourself and your indoctrination?


Yes, I have no patience for stupidity regardless of how it's packaged. :p

(knew you'd have to comment. Yes, you've been on ignore under the HI moniker from like your 4th post).

[Homeland Insurgency]

Yes, I have no patience for stupidity regardless of how it's packaged. :p

(knew you'd have to comment. Yes, you've been on ignore under the HI moniker from like your 4th post).

Yeah that's right. No patience or tolerance and anything different then you is stupidity or worse.

It’s evil.

EEEEEEVAIL I SAY!

[mchapman]

Dead men don't need a trial. How about addressing your OP?

Wow, lets hope you dont get accused of ahenious crime then die before your trial.

Dead men are presumed innocent until proven guilty, like everybody else.

[mchapman]

No Planers should be very careful about accusing other people of having "no evidence" on the "people who live in Glass Houses,etc" principal.

When did I say I was a no planer?

[ktesibios]

Because I consider Infowars to be a less reliable source than my cats (who always say they're hungry and are always correct), I spent an hour or so going through the edit history of the Wikipedia article on American Airlines, page by page, using my browser's "find" function to look for any IPs in the 144.9.x.x block, which belongs to AA.

Eventually I did find the edit in question. The verbiage about the BTS database was added at 1845 UTC on May 5, 2006 by 144.9.8.21. It was removed about a month later by user Maverick05, with the comment "This is stupid and offensive. Keep conspiracy theories to their own pages.".

Since then, 144.9.8.21 has made some nine edits to the same article- none of them having anything whatsoever to do with 9/11. They have instead been trivia about the addition of winglets, corrections to the list of AA's partner airlines, and other things which a knowledgeable employee might be motivated to correct in an article about their workplace. Since 144.9.8.21 is very likely a gateway IP for an entire office (or building) we can't infer that all of these were made by the same person.

There has been, as far as I can determine, no attempt at all to put that text back in the Wiki article. These circumstances don't suggest that it was an official company position nor a genuine whistleblower. What they do suggest is some bored office dweeb who had internet access via the company network and used it to waste time reading conspiraloon Web sites.

Turning to the BTS database itself, I find this:

Airline on-time data are reported each month to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) by the 18 U.S. air carriers that have at least 1 percent of total domestic scheduled-service passenger revenues, plus two other carriers that report voluntarily. The data cover nonstop scheduled-service flights between points within the United States (including territories) as described in 14 CFR Part 234 of DOT's regulations.Sauce (http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/airline_ontime_statistics/)

That an airline in the straits that AA was in after 9/11 could neglect reporting the on-time takeoff of the two worst disasters in their history is something that only a dedicated conspiracist can see as suspicious, or as having any evidentiary value at all.

When I see just how determined people like AJ are to perceive boogeymen behind every blade of grass, I marvel that they ever manage to walk to the bathroom without dying of fright.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

If you believe either one of the two live shots was faked, then you must necessarily believe in no flying object.

[mchapman]

No, the offcial story does NOT admit it has no hard evidence against Osama. You're trying to be misleading about him not being on the msot wanted list for a specific reason. There is no doubt by the FBI or anyone other than crackpots that Osama was the leader of Al Qeada and that Al Qeada carried out the attacks. Once again, the evidence has been listed and is conclusive. It stands up in a court of law.

Now can any of your crackpot theories do the same? You can't even support your faked video nonsense. You can't even stick up for your own beliefs or support them because you have absolutely no evidence what so ever to support your crackpot theories.

Like creationism, your cult has to focus on casting doubt on real research to make up for the fact that you cannot support your own hypothesis. And to make it worse you make the same identical arguments as well the lemmings before you. But who are we kidding? you're not new here, you're just using a new login to make the same arguments you've been making for forever.

And yet years go by and still no one will listen to your crackpot theories. I guess it must be getting lonely down there eh?

Stop lying. WHen asked why 911 wasnt listed on Osama's wanted page. the FBI clearly stated it was because they had no hard evidence linking him to 911. That was their exact words.

We also never saw the dossier of evidence they promised to hand over to the Taliban.

And lets not forget Osama categorically denied being involved. Indeed, he implied it was an inside job. And he would know, what with his CIa roots.

[HyJinX]

When did I say I was a no planer?

So...was it missiles and planes then?

[mchapman]

If you believe either one of the two live shots was faked, then you must necessarily believe in no flying object.

Not necessarily.

[mchapman]

So...was it missiles and planes then?

When did I say it was missiles? I simply used that as an example of how the eyewitnesses are not 100% reliable. Please quote where I once said missiles were used. Stop putting words in peoples mouths and produce someevidence for a change.

[Grizzly Bear]

I can never tell one posting style from another, but every single time one's outed they'd already been on my ignore list just like the original persona. :p

I don't care much for posting style... same claims, same bull*rule10*.

You have no evidence of anything.
Rather than focus on imaginary scenarios of me not having any evidence, perhaps you should be more concerned about the evidence you intend to provide to convince me that the planes were fakes in front of a good chunk of lower Manhattan. You asked for 50 witness that substantiated the presence of plane wreckage and witness of the plane impact. I provided you with a list of interview transcripts of rescue personnel who provided their input. Other member subsequently provided you with the testimony you asked for, and what did you do? You shifted goal posts again, and then out of nowhere (unsurprisingly) you hand-waved the rescue personnel as testimony coming from government employees, and you ignored the subsequent information provided to you.

You just parrot an official story.
You assume too much :)
I understood the basic collapse mechanisms in the twin towers when I had started studying architecture in the same year. I read the NIST report earlier this year to satisfy my curiosity and see if the overall material was consistent with what I knew, and in general I agree with the basic concepts. Truth movement claims on the other hand aren't justified especially in regard to structural engineering aspects of the towers and your more recent no-planer claims. I think I'm more than capable of having my own opinion on this.

Even the official story admits it has no hard evidence against osama...
This is not the case

You have absolutely no evidence of the identity of the hijackers, men who have had no trial.
As AJM8125 so elegantly put it, dead men don't need trials

[Drudgewire]

Truth movement claims on the other hand aren't justified especially in regard to structural engineering aspects of the towers and your more recent no-planer claims. I think I'm more than capable of having my own opinion on this.

Clearly you've never seen the cardboard boxes demonstration, Mr. Smartypants. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

[JoeyDonuts]

I think I've already quite decisively blown up the missile fallacy.

The explosive yield is too large for any MANPAD system I've ever heard of, The largest cruise missile EVER CREATED is still too small to be reasonably confused for an aircraft, and the nature of the explosion itself rules out any sort of unitary warhead, thus eliminating over 90 percent of the free world arsenal.

And as for "doing it live" on the plane effect?!? What this suggests is that all of the NYC area stations, indeed, even stations OUTSIDE of the area simultaneously had their Technical Directors run a production control effect that made it appear that planes hit the towers?!? Several different TV stations with a myriad of different shot angles on the second tower SOMEHOW managed to both have the video effect made beforehand at the PRECISE angle and cutout (luma key) dimensions and everything?!? And that furthermore, all of the camera shots for the individual specific network that had that specific effect built were exactly in the right position at the right place as far as pan/tilt/zoom/focus, etc? FURTHERmore, the technical directors at the boards OF EVERY SINGLE STATION covering the event ALL ran this effect at precisely the right time in perfect synchronicity?!?!?

How can the government be so smart as to plan such a highly detailed media operations campaign to do a synchronized video effect covering a myriad of different camera shots hits at exactly the same time at every single one of the TV networks...and then be so stupid as to leave enough breadcrumbs so that gentlemen such as yourselves can unravel this vast conspiracy???

Short answer : It isn't.

[Homeland Insurgency]

So...was it missiles and planes then?

Who knows? Maybe there should be an investigation.

[JoeyDonuts]

Oh by the way...Production control switchers in use at TV stations couldn't do that effect live. That demonstration video that was linked to was OBVIOUSLY done in post-production and not executed through a video switcher such as a TD might use in a real TV station.

Booyakasha.

[CptColumbo]

I watched the video in the OP, and as someone with a Technical college degree in Television Production (Hennepin Technical College - Eden Prairie Campus 89-92, Director of Department Don Leann) I see no manipulation of the picture through video FX. However, the quality of the footage used in this video is poor and it is hard for me to give an absolute determination based on it. On the other hand I have the DVD of the Naudet documentary (it's very good) and see no video FX in the relevant area of the documentary or anything out of the ordinary.

Keep in mind that the FX tech I was working with was in the early 90's, have since gone into a different profession (along with a Bachelor's Degree and MFA in Theatre) and do not keep up on the current technology.

I do still know people in the industry who do work in visual effects, in the past I had them look at the same footage and they saw no VFX being used.

[JoeyDonuts]

Who knows? Maybe there should be an investigation.

Maybe we should waste millions of taxpayer dollars investigating other tragedies that had eyewitnesses. Maybe the USS Cole hit an exploding whale planted by the nWo. Maybe Kennedy was shot from the grassy knoll by a Red Ryder BB gun that had been pumped like 1000 times and stuff.

But I'll go with you on this one. Sure. Whatever.

Who would you suggest lead this investigation, since we obviously can't trust our own government agencies?

[CptColumbo]

Oh by the way...Production control switchers in use at TV stations couldn't do that effect live. That demonstration video that was linked to was OBVIOUSLY done in post-production and not executed through a video switcher such as a TD might use in a real TV station.

Booyakasha.
The ones commonly used at TV stations probably couldn't, but there are some that can do live effects.

For example http://www.newtek.com/vt/index.php

[Grizzly Bear]

Clearly you've never seen the cardboard boxes demonstration, Mr. Smartypants. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

Magical cardboard exists? Wait a tic... http://209.85.62.24/32/121/0/e160311//e160311.gif

[HyJinX]

When did I say it was missiles? I simply used that as an example of how the eyewitnesses are not 100% reliable. Please quote where I once said missiles were used. Stop putting words in peoples mouths and produce someevidence for a change.

Oh...the stench of irony from you is abyssmal.

[HyJinX]

Who knows? Maybe there should be an investigation.

What's stopping you, lil' buddy? Maybe you can make it an extra credit project for your Social Studies class.

[VespaGuy]

Just in case anyone missed this excellent advice...

Just a little suggestion for everyone's sanity, STOP RESPONDING TO mchapman! He is directly ignoring all evidence presented. He simply spouts nonsense without providing proof. Eye witness testimony of people seeing the plane has been presented to him several times, and he has chosen to ignore it EVERY time.

[Jonnyclueless]

Stop lying. WHen asked why 911 wasnt listed on Osama's wanted page. the FBI clearly stated it was because they had no hard evidence linking him to 911. That was their exact words.

We also never saw the dossier of evidence they promised to hand over to the Taliban.

And lets not forget Osama categorically denied being involved. Indeed, he implied it was an inside job. And he would know, what with his CIa roots.

The only one here Lying is YOU. You were the one who tried to mislead about your claim about the FBI and Osama. It's nice to see you correct yourself in this post while calling me a liar.

it's correct they don't have enough evidence to DIRECTLY link Osama to the crime itself. But what you are ignoring is that he was the leader of the group who DID carry out the attacks and this is NOT in dispute. The FBI directly charges Al Qeada with carrying out the attacks.

It's like saying Al Capone didn't actually commit murder because he was charged with ta evasion. There's no doubt about what Al Capone did. Just like there is no doubt about what Osama Bin LAden did. You know, the guy who even admitted to it? you know the guy who ran Al Qeada who's many members openly admit to it? you know the group whom the FBI has conclusive evidence on?

Osama categorically admitted to planning the attacks and went into great detail to describe as to how he came up with the idea and why he decided to carry it out. There are video tapes of him with some o the hijackers as the hijackers give their suicide messages before the attacks. The only time Osama denied the attacks was at the time when the US was threatening to go after him. Had he admitted to it at the time, then Afghan would have immediately been invaded which would not be too welcome by the people who were kind enough to host his terrorist training camps which were used to carry out many of the other terrorist attacks against the US.

But I wouldn't expect a terrorist apologist such as yourself to understand. Not from someone using the old worn out argument about the CIA that you read from your favorite 9/11 cult tabloid. Try to start thinking for yourself.

[Homeland Insurgency]

What's stopping you, lil' buddy? Maybe you can make it an extra credit project for your Social Studies class.

What's stopping you from proving your conspiracy true? Your disdain for real investigations? Maybe you should at least read up on what you believe. At least then you would know things like the said hijackers were claimed to have used aliases and fraudulent identifications in the past.


Maybe you shouldn't spend so much time on social studies. You're probably just failing anyway.

[Jonnyclueless]

There was a real investigation and the events that happened that day have been concluded. Some people just can't come to grips with reality. If you kids want a witch hunt, then it should be on your dime. Don't waste our money on your fantasies. No one is stopping you from getting out the old red flyer wagon, a red cape, and paying for your own investigation.

[Homeland Insurgency]

There was a real investigation and the events that happened that day have been concluded. Some people just can't come to grips with reality. If you kids want a witch hunt, then it should be on your dime. Don't waste our money on your fantasies. No one is stopping you from getting out the old red flyer wagon, a red cape, and paying for your own investigation.

Yeah that's right. Wall Street, Illegal wars, dirty dresses, etc. are all more important then 9/11 to debunkers.

It must be because they’re so patriotic.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Yeah that's right. Wall Street, Illegal wars, dirty dresses, etc. are all more important then 9/11 to debunkers.

It must be because they’re so patriotic.


...what? :confused:

[JoeyDonuts]

Ejecting now.

[AJM8125]

You have no evidence of anything. You just parrot an official story. Even the official story admits it has no hard evidence against osama but you still claim he did 911. You have absolutely no evidence of the identity of the hijackers, men who have had no trial.

Dead men don't need a trial. How about addressing your OP?

Wow, lets hope you dont get accused of ahenious crime then die before your trial.

Dead men are presumed innocent until proven guilty, like everybody else.

As a cadaver, I think I'd hardly be in a position to give a rodent's behind how anyone would judge me, I'm dead. I would have no feelings on the matter either way.

Your OP, on the other hand, is what is in question here, or have you abandoned it?

[jhunter1163]

Mchapman, would you mind telling Stanley Praimnath just what it was that flew through his window and killed all his coworkers?

I'll throw this one open to all the truthers. Any takers?

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

I know Ace Baker was unsuccessful at finding any airplane witnesses to talk to him. I imagine he would love to talk to Stanley.

[Jonnyclueless]

Yeah that's right. Wall Street, Illegal wars, dirty dresses, etc. are all more important then 9/11 to debunkers.

It must be because they’re so patriotic.

You're gonna need more than empty rhetoric buddy.

[Corsair 115]

I know Ace Baker was unsuccessful at finding any airplane witnesses to talk to him. I imagine he would love to talk to Stanley.Did he bother to go to the library to look up issues of newspapers on microfilm? Specifically, he could start with their 9/12 issues and then read through the reporting to see if there are accounts from eyewitnesses. There are plenty of American and foreign newspapers which covered the events of that day, so there is plenty to research. I'd wager you could find some eyewitness testimonials amongst all those news reports.

Then he could move on to the reports of television news outlets, of which, again, there are many to choose from, including U.S. and foreign networks.

After that, he could move on to demonstrating how the forty other videos which show the second jet hitting the WTC towers, all taken from different locations with different cameras and by different people, are all also fakes as well.

Lastly, he could then demonstrate how all the still photographs of the impact, which appeared in newspapers, are also all fakes.


Or, he could take a much simpler and far more rational path and admit that the no plane proposition is ludicrous beyond words.

[yodaluver28]

Baker probably insisted on speaking to eyewitnesses in person so that he could ambush them with insane questions and innuendos until one of them got so ticked that they went off on him like Buzz Aldrin when he finally punched Bart Sibrel after years of harassment. I mean that would really be his only shot at discrediting them.

[Dave Rogers]

Produce 50 people who saw a plane and I'll shut up and go away.

Fair enough?

There are over 70 witness testimonies in the Gravy link alone, many more at the other links I provided. The point is that mchapman's challenge is answered beyond his specification.

Several people said they saw missiles [...]

Like the people who actually reported it to the police [...]

http://www.orbwar.com/woolworth/

So were all these witnesses lying? [...]

Which serial numbered parts [...]

You have no evidence of anything[...]

Perhaps you could summarize [...]

Wow, lets hope [...]

When did I say I was a no planer?

Stop lying. [...]

Not necessarily.

When did I say it was missiles? [...]

How's the shutting up and going away working out for you, mchapman?

Dave

[funk de fino]

I know Ace Baker was unsuccessful at finding any airplane witnesses to talk to him. I imagine he would love to talk to Stanley.

unwilling more like

i would cross the street if i met him also

[OneShotKi11]

Perhaps you could summarize the huge volume of evidence you have to support the official story. it would give us something to practice our reading skills on.

We have video of planes crashing into buildings. So we believe its safe to say planes crashed into buildings. Unless you can provide evidence of something else striking the building.
Well can you?

We dont need to find evidence to back our claim. We are call it as we see it.
Your the one with the crazy ideas so please prove them!

[leftysergeant]

Simon Shack is, pure and simple, an uneducated idiot.

Anyone with any knowledge of fire fighter SOP could probably tell from his captions on the footage of the crew checking for the gas leak that he is uninformed. He seems to think that it is unusual that the street would be blocked while fire fighters are wandering around the traffic lanes putting gas detectors through the gratings. Maybe he is just too stupid to realize that you do not let a possible source of ignition, like a hot catalytic converter enter an area with a potentially explosive atmosphere.

Shack starts on stupid and does not move much from that point.

His comments that the aircraft appears transparent shows that he has no idea what the concept of "focus" is all about.
Ever with auto-focus, a ca,era will not clearly record an object beyond where it is aimed and focused. Auto-focus would adjust to the nearest building in line of sight. That was not the tower or the aircraft.

Now, if the dimbulb had looked at all that footage, he would realize that the smoke from the fireball cast a shadow on the facade of the building, and that its angle was pretty nearly the same as the dark "penciled-in" mark that he calls a "photo-shopped gash." It was a shadow. It isn't there in later frames, and it is out-of-line with the actual wing prints.

Anyone who considers any of Shack's blather "evidence" needs to take a course in drawing and to go talk to a fire fighter about how they manage traffic in the vicinity of a gas leak.

Somewhere, there is a short yellow bus short a passenger.

[twinstead]

I can't believe ANYBODY who calls themselves an investigator, whether they actually believe the 'official story' or not, wouldn't at least be aware of the vast body of evidence that is a matter of the public record that was presented to support it. Any time I bring up that this evidence exists, and some idiot says "Sure it does. show it to me", it's time to shut the lights out on the crazy train and bring it into the station.

[WildCat]

Maybe they were thermite filled, mini-nuke, laser missiles. What do you think Mchapman? Plausible?
No, they were filled with sharks with laser beams strapped onto their heads!

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

The ones commonly used at TV stations probably couldn't, but there are some that can do live effects.

For example http://www.newtek.com/vt/index.php


Avid Symphony also does real-time compositing, and was available in 2001.

[Jonnyclueless]

So all the TV station sin the world and all the film crews and all the civilians who are responsible for many of the films are all in on it? AND the millions of people who watched in person are all in on it too?

And you guys seriously don't understand why people call you crackpots?

Remember, trying to point out that one video is faked (even doing a shoddy job of it) is no an argument. ALL the live videos have to be proven faked as well as all the people responsible for them.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Only two live videos, neither one of which shows a plane hitting anything. Proof of compositing is here (http://www.psy-opera.com/Papers/Composites-1-9.pdf).

[twinstead]

So Steven what is your take on why there are so many eye witnesses to the plane hitting the building again?

[Jonnyclueless]

But there were 100s of videos taken by 100s of people. They all have to be fake as well, do they not? And then don't forget the millions of us who were there in person and not only saw it, but felt and heard it.

And that's not proof of composting being used on the live videos. You have to prove that the capture on those videos was absolutely impossible without composting and have to prove that the people involved did it. This means that all the news organizations and all the news crews who were there filming it.

[Jonnyclueless]

Also, one of the news channels on this 9/11 aired the footage they had from 9/11 as it happened and uninterrupted. It most certainly did show a plane hitting the building. The funny thing was that while the impact was caught live on camera, the reporters talking did not notice it and had to rewind the tape to see what just happened. Of course anyone just looking at the video could see, but the reporters were busy talking and not watching the video. They also were on the phone with someone live who screamed after seeing it in person and that's what prompted the reporters to rewind the footage and look at it.

I still can't believe there are nutjobs trying to claim there were no planes.

[dtugg]

Ace Bakers crap isn't proof of anything. He is deluded and has no idea what he is talking about. Apparently, Steven, you are as well for even taking him seriously. A large commercial jet really hit the tower. I know because I saw with my own eyes, as did countless other people in the metro area. Therefore, TV fakery is nonsense because it makes zero sense to fake video of an event that really happened. It would just make the conspiracy that much more complex for no gain at all.

[CptColumbo]

Most systems would be able to remove a plane more convincingly than add a plane to a live shot. Either way, you would also have to account for the eyewitnesses.

[ElMondoHummus]

Perhaps you could summarize the huge volume of evidence you have to support the official story. it would give us something to practice our reading skills on.

Gravy's done this:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

Now granted, since you're hellbent on disproving Gravy's research, I don't know if you'll get much out of it, but at least I can point this out so that lurkers and new folks so they can understand that the supporting evidence is indeed out there, and plentiful.


As voluminous as Gravy's site is, it's still not 100% complete. No one source can be. But it covers a heck of a lot on it's own. As a small excerpt of examples:

The eyewitness accounts you requested earlier but have not yet acknowledged: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw%3Aeyewitnessaccountsofthenycai
Ground Zero cleanup and steel recovery information: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera
"Accounts of Tower Structural Instability and Expected Collapse": http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande
Several pages of Flight 93 evidence, starting here: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1
A couple of pages of Flight 77 evidence, starting here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
NORAD and the military response: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/norad%2Cfaa%2Cntsb%2Caircraftcapabilities%2Cpilo
... and so on. Granted, much of it is from the point of view of refuting conspiracy fantasies, but much of it is either links to original information, or like the NORAD section, links to analyses of original information. The point is that volumes of evidence can be discovered through a reading of his site alone, let alone the other sites on the net, like Debunking 911 (http://debunking911.com), 911 Myths (http://911myths.com), non-"debunking" sites like the NTSB FOIA info release page (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm) (where you can get FDR and CVR reports, flight plan studies, etc.), the US Court's Moussaoui trial evidence page (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html), the NYTimes 9/11 Oral Histories page (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_01.html), and so on.

[Corsair 115]

Only two live videos, neither one of which shows a plane hitting anything.What is this emphasis on the live images about? Of what significance is that? There are some FORTY other videos recorded of the jet impacts that day! All taken from different locations. All recorded by different cameras. All taken by different people, some professional news camera operators and others private citizens.

Then there are all the still camera photographs taken.

Then there are all the direct eyewitnesses.

Then there is all the physical evidence.


The no plane proposition is insane. And you seem incapable of realizing it.

[Foolmewunz]

I know Ace Baker was unsuccessful at finding any airplane witnesses to talk to him. I imagine he would love to talk to Stanley.

Uhh, not to put to fine a point to it, but Ace's search for witnesses is not dissimilar to OJ's search for the real killer.

Just sayin, ya know.

[pomeroo]

I know Ace Baker was unsuccessful at finding any airplane witnesses to talk to him. I imagine he would love to talk to Stanley.



Yes, I was similarly unsuccessful at climbing Mount Everest. Like Ace, I never made the attempt. In addition to being seriously ill, Ace Baker is dishonest. He was in NYC for his debate with Steve Wright. He showed no interest in visiting Ground Zero and asking random people if they or anyone they knew saw the crash of either plane. He would have heard quite a few stories, but he understands that very well. Ace will never seek out witnesses for a simple reason: after he's called them liars, his bag of tricks is empty.

[MRC_Hans]

Address the video or pipe down.

OK.

1) Unreal or transparant-looking plane: Camara was focussed at nearby persons. When panning to building, it was not perfectly focussed. An effective resolution of approximately 5 yards was the result.

2) First explosion: The energy released by the collision alone equaled a fairly large explosive charge. This atomized a large quantity of fuel into the air and created the observed fireball.

3) Second explosion: The first fireball acted much like a fuel aerosol bomb and consumed all the oxygen in the impact area. Some seconds later, fresh air was drewn in by the rising fireball, and fuel inside the building flared up, seen through the gash left by the wing.

4) Missing hole from wing-tip: Invisible with the poor resolution due to imperfect focus. You will notice that while the vertical partitions are just visible, you also cannot see the window-bands (which are a larger and more visible feature than the wing-tip part of the gash):

5) "Pencilled-in" dark band: This band follows a window-band and could come from windows being burst by the fire on that floor, or it could simply be a shadow of the fire-ball. That it seems to come into view is again a focus artefact. You will notice that other details on the building also tone into view as the camara focuses on it. First, the face of the building is seen as a uniform gray surface (very poor focus), then the vertical bands become visible, and finally more detail. During the focussing process, the dark band also materializes.

Hans

[Quad4_72]

Which is more crazy? A no planer, or debating a no planer for 9 pages?

[twinstead]

Which is more crazy? A no planer, or debating a no planer for 9 pages?

I find no planers especially fascinating. I'm simply flabbergasted that somebody actually believes something like that, but alas you are correct; debating with them is crazy as hell.

[Gavron]

Someone was getting into an argument with a mod over on ATS on that very subject. The mod witnesses it hitting the second building, and the poster was pretty much calling him a liar.

It can get ugly at times...

[defaultdotxbe]

i find it no crazier than a tennis player hitting a ball against a brick wall

sure they arent going to win

sure its really just a pile of rocks

but they do it anyway, for fun, for practice, for whatever